From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: language cleanups in code and docs |
Date: | 2021-01-04 23:42:10 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLm_7gnvY9wU+qOmi=ub+mWsdhkdH9tEwu_X5yBe+-vOg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 4:10 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:23 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Hmm, can we find a more descriptive name for this mechanism? What
> > about calling it the "uncommitted enum table"? See attached.
>
> Thanks for picking this one up again!
>
> Agreed, that's a much better choice.
>
> The term itself is a bit of a mouthful, but it does describe what it
> is in a much more clear way than what the old term did anyway.
>
> Maybe consider just calling it "uncomitted enums", which would as a
> bonus have it not end up talking about uncommittedenumtablespace which
> gets hits on searches for tablespace.. Though I'm not sure that's
> important.
>
> I'm +1 to the change with or without that adjustment.
Cool. I went with your suggestion.
> As for the code, I note that:
> + /* Set up the enum table if not already done in this transaction */
>
> forgets to say it's *uncomitted* enum table -- which is the important
> part of I believe.
Fixed.
> And
> + * Test if the given enum value is in the table of blocked enums.
>
> should probably talk about uncommitted rather than blocked?
Fixed.
And pushed.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-01-04 23:45:57 | Re: [PATCH] Simple progress reporting for COPY command |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-01-04 23:18:07 | Re: Online checksums patch - once again |